(11-05-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: If they assume the God character in the Flood story, as well as some other OT stories is omnipotent, it would likely just indicate that they haven't really read the stories, or just glanced over these conflicting details.

So let me see if I'm understanding right here.
1. An omnipotent (omniscient? omnibenevolent?) god exists
2. The Bible is his message to mankind
3. The Bible's content is largely false if taken literally
4. Taking the holy spirit as the only available guide to interpreting the book, many conflicting interpretations emerge justifying both good and evil.

If the Bible is god's message to mankind, what exactly is he trying to communicate through it and in what way does this form of communication that seems to have such low information fidelity serve his purposes?

If so, than perhaps the ones often recognized by historians as having some historical validity behind them, where the writers seem to be using actual events and people as part of their religious writings.

No, accurate depictions of God; try to stay on point.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Quote:Taking the holy spirit as the only available guide to interpreting the book, many conflicting interpretations emerge justifying both good and evil.

I don't see why the holy spirit would be required to interpret or read the bible, any more than interpreting or reading any other book. Of course peoples biases, and prejudices often inflict their understandings, but thats pretty much of any writing period. How many times do faithful unbelievers accuse believers of not understanding the writings of Dawkins, Harris, Darwin etc... of distorting and quote mining them.

Quote:If the Bible is god's message to mankind, what exactly is he trying to communicate through it and in what way does this form of communication that seems to have such low information fidelity serve his purposes?

Before we even start to consider the Bible God's message to mankind, perhaps we'd have to start interpreting it as any other book first, to see if it has anything profound or meaningful to say, to call it even divinely inspired.

Quote:Taking the holy spirit as the only available guide to interpreting the book, many conflicting interpretations emerge justifying both good and evil.

I don't see why the holy spirit would be required to interpret or read the bible, any more than interpreting or reading any other book. Of course peoples biases, and prejudices often inflict their understandings, but thats pretty much of any writing period. How many times do faithful unbelievers accuse believers of not understanding the writings of Dawkins, Harris, Darwin etc... of distorting and quote mining them.

Quote:If the Bible is god's message to mankind, what exactly is he trying to communicate through it and in what way does this form of communication that seems to have such low information fidelity serve his purposes?

Before we even start to consider the Bible God's message to mankind, perhaps we'd have to start interpreting it as any other book first, to see if it has anything profound or meaningful to say, to call it even divinely inspired.

I think it is good to separate the Bible from its magical/otherworldly quality and assess it on its own merits. However, that goes against the teachings of the Bible--according to many christians.

Matthew 4 says its divinely inspired: “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

(11-05-2015 06:25 PM)jennybee Wrote: I think it is good to separate the Bible from its magical/otherworldly quality and assess it on its own merits. However, that goes against the teachings of the Bible--according to many christians.

You're not a Christian are you? You don't believe in much of anything Christians say of the bible. So you can't particularly assume them and read the bible now can you? You'd have to start by assessing it on it's own merit.

Quote:Matthew 4 says its divinely inspired: “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

And you think when Jesus speaks of "every word that comes from the mouth of God" that he was speaking exclusively of the Bible? And again saying something is inspired by God, is not the same and saying it was dictated by God.

(11-05-2015 06:25 PM)jennybee Wrote: I think it is good to separate the Bible from its magical/otherworldly quality and assess it on its own merits. However, that goes against the teachings of the Bible--according to many christians.

You're not a Christian are you? You don't believe in much of anything Christians say of the bible. So you can't particularly assume them and read the bible now can you? You'd have to start by assessing in own it's own merit.

Quote:Matthew 4 says its divinely inspired: “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

And you think when Jesus speaks of "every word that comes from the mouth of God" that he was speaking of the Bible?

I'm no longer a christian--but I was a christian for many years. I used to believe everything Christians said about the Bible. And assessing the Bible on its own merits and not as the word of God would have been heresy in my church (and in most christian churches I know of). I do think Jesus was speaking of the written word of God, yes.

(11-05-2015 06:48 PM)jennybee Wrote: I do think Jesus was speaking of the written word of God, yes.

So when Jesus was speaking of the pre-christian bible, prior to the gospels, and the new testament writings?

And when John writes of Jesus being the Word, he meant that Jesus was the Bible?

Well, considering Jesus is making reference in Matthew 4 to Deut. 8:5--I would say, yes, he was talking about the O.T. John was writing about this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."